Knee extensor strength gains mediate symptom improvement in knee osteoarthritis: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if an increase in knee extensor strength mediates the effect of a 12-week knee extensor strength training program on pain and physical function improvement in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Secondary analysis from a randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of a 12-week knee extensor strengthening exercise program to a control group with no intervention. METHODS: Data from participants with complete data (n = 97) enrolled in a previous clinical trial were analysed. Baseline and 12-week follow-up assessments included peak isometric knee extensor strength, pain and physical function. Peak knee extensor strength (Nm/kg) was assessed on an isokinetic dynamometer and subscales of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index were used to assess pain and physical function. Twelve-week change in pain and physical function were regressed separately, on 12-week change in knee extensor strength and group allocation. Covariates included baseline pain or physical function as appropriate, and baseline knee extensor strength, age, sex and knee alignment (stratification variable). RESULTS: Improved knee extensor strength mediated the effect of the strengthening program on both pain relief (mediated effect size = 0.69, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.05-1.33, P = 0.03), and improved physical function (mediated effect size = 1.86, 95% CI 0.08-3.64, P = 0.04), at 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Increased knee extensor strength partially mediates the effect of a knee extensor strength training program on pain and physical function improvement in people with knee OA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".